Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Member
|
Unfined and unfiltered are more likely to age in the bottle. I like bottle aging, so I like unfined and unfiltered. Fined and filtered is fine for youthful wines.
For the Portheads... www.theportforum.com
|
| |
| Posts: 4178 | Location: Middle Earth | Registered: Sep 02, 2002 | |
|
Member
|
What KillerB said! And---You can always filter the wine when you open it; using this procedure, you receive the benefits of both. However, don't tell Board-O you filter the wine throught a coffee filter!  Board-O did mention this procedure, which sounded excellent. Stand the vintage bottle upright for a few days, decant without filtering, but save the last glass for the coffee filter. Using this method, you get to taste the wine filtered & unfiltered, and the majority of the bottle remains unchanged.---Also, see if you can discern any differences! |
| |
| Posts: 6874 | Location: Germantown, Tennessee | Registered: Oct 25, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Healdsburg Gal:
Does anyone dislike unfined and unfiltered wine?
I like red wine  ! |
| |
| Posts: 6874 | Location: Germantown, Tennessee | Registered: Oct 25, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
Unfined and unfiltered = more things in the wine = more things that can go wrong = increased bottle variation.
It was my Uncle George who discovered that alcohol was a food well in advance of modern medical thought. - P. G. Wodehouse
|
| |
| Posts: 3461 | Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia | Registered: Jan 06, 2003 | |
|
Member
|
Pauly is most definitely correct on the "more things to go wrong" point. Mr. Parker has set the standard for trumpeting the "unfined and unfiltered" mantra. The impression is that in all cases, this is the trendy, better, handcrafted thing to do. In some cases, it is not. If you "plate" the wine for assorted bacteria and all is well, and the turbidity (clarity) is in a reasonable zone, then yes, by all means... unfined and unfiltered. But if the wine needs to be cleaned, it needs to be cleaned, and there is no getting around that. A few years back I had a bottle of CA pinot from a notable winemaker. It was so murky it looked like prune juice. I consider this a flawed wine-- there's just no excuse for a murky wine (at least not an acceptable one... IMO). For me, taste alone will not overcome awful aesthetics. In other situations, you try a bottle of wine when it is quite young, and it tastes good but needs time. So you age it for a couple of years... only to discover that a small amount of brett was in the wine. Initially undectable, but later on it has grown exponentially in the bottle. You open the bottle and it tastes ... for lack of a better term... like crap. This situation could have been resolved by sterile filtering, ideally in a delicate manner. So the point is, unfiltered and unfined is generally favored when the conditions are right. When they are not, I have come to believe that it is a mistake to fall in love with a concept.
TM
|
| |
| Posts: 741 | Location: MSP & PDX | Registered: Dec 11, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by BHVineyard:
Pauly is most definitely correct on the "more things to go wrong" point.
Mr. Parker has set the standard for trumpeting the "unfined and unfiltered" mantra. The impression is that in all cases, this is the trendy, better, handcrafted thing to do. In some cases, it is not.
If you "plate" the wine for assorted bacteria and all is well, and the turbidity (clarity) is in a reasonable zone, then yes, by all means... unfined and unfiltered. But if the wine needs to be cleaned, it needs to be cleaned, and there is no getting around that.
A few years back I had a bottle of CA pinot from a notable winemaker. It was so murky it looked like prune juice. I consider this a flawed wine-- there's just no excuse for a murky wine (at least not an acceptable one... IMO). For me, taste alone will not overcome awful aesthetics.
In other situations, you try a bottle of wine when it is quite young, and it tastes good but needs time. So you age it for a couple of years... only to discover that a small amount of brett was in the wine. Initially undectable, but later on it has grown exponentially in the bottle. You open the bottle and it tastes ... for lack of a better term... like crap. This situation could have been resolved by sterile filtering, ideally in a delicate manner.
So the point is, unfiltered and unfined is generally favored when the conditions are right. When they are not, I have come to believe that it is a mistake to fall in love with a concept.
Agreed. In most cases, I prefer wines with less intervention. If the wine shows signs of needing filtration, it's a necessary evil.
--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
|
| |
| Posts: 6912 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
Makes no difference to me. I do think highly of the cellar crews that can get those wines so pristinely clear by their expertise and careful racking. They rule!
**********************************************
"Asking government to fix this crisis is like asking the arsonist to put out the fire." -Thomas Sowell
|
| |
| Posts: 4510 | Location: Dubai | Registered: Dec 20, 2002 | |
|
Member
|
One of the misperceptions about filtering is that many think it's primary purpose is cosmetic -- i.e, clarity. While that is certainly a factor, by far the bigger issue is that it dramatically reduces the probability that a wine will start growing undesirable stuff in the bottle. To cdr's point, yes, racking, careful handling, adequate blending tank time, and selected fining can make the wine clear; but if it has "bugs" in it, then it needs to be stablized. Of course, the ideal situation is to have everything work out perfectly and then fining and filtering are not needed. At that point, it becomes a stylistic and artistic decision. But the unilateral, unquestioned, promoting of "unfiltered and unfined" fails to recognize the fact that wine is frequently not as clean as every winemaker would like it to be. Those that bottle it anyway (without filtering), are, arguably, playing with fire.
TM
|
| |
| Posts: 741 | Location: MSP & PDX | Registered: Dec 11, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but to back up BHV's post filtration was introduced in Australia for bacterial control, the cosmetic benefit was an added bonus.
It was my Uncle George who discovered that alcohol was a food well in advance of modern medical thought. - P. G. Wodehouse
|
| |
| Posts: 3461 | Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia | Registered: Jan 06, 2003 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Pauly:
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but to back up BHV's post filtration was introduced in Australia for bacterial control, the cosmetic benefit was an added bonus.
I thought Louis Pasteur had that under control 150 years ago! |
| |
| Posts: 6874 | Location: Germantown, Tennessee | Registered: Oct 25, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
Pasteurized wine? Stewed fruit anyone?
|
| |
|
Member
|
Fining is fine if the wine needs it. Unfiltered is a roll of the dice that there is nothing alive (or potentially alive) in there after bottling. Not a wise bet if you ask me.
-----------------------
Randy Sloan, Owner / Vintner / Filler of Fax Paper
Match Vineyards
http://www.MatchVineyards.com
|
| |
| Posts: 1555 | Location: Napa Valley and East Bay | Registered: Oct 23, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
My only concern is that the violent process of fining and filtering is torture to the wine and may interfere with its expression of terroir, euro beauty and ultimately, its singular sense of place. My personal contention is that the expression of terroir is so profound and unique to each wine that nothing can mitigate its impact in the finished wine regardless of how much human intervention may have occurred. The mystical, magical sense of place always comes through and speaks to the soul of the true wine lover.
**********************************************
"Asking government to fix this crisis is like asking the arsonist to put out the fire." -Thomas Sowell
|
| |
| Posts: 4510 | Location: Dubai | Registered: Dec 20, 2002 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Pauly
Unfined and unfiltered = more things in the wine = more things that can go wrong = increased bottle variation.
Certainly not filtering leaves more "things" in the wine - but it has been my understanding that fining (say with albumen) leaves protein in the wine, promoting odd growths and such - which is where things go wrong. This would seem to be why unfined wines would age better. Of course I only know what I read in the papers. Cheers,
Wine, Cheese, and Friends are better with age.
|
| |
| Posts: 92 | Location: Arizona | Registered: Jan 20, 2007 | |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© Wine Spectator Online 2009
|
